Chris Matthews: I’m pretty surprised to learn that the mandate might be unconstitutional

posted at 8:28 pm on March 29, 2012 by Allahpundit

Via Newsbusters and Ace, who points to Karl’s piece in the Greenroom as a reminder that our very open-minded friends on the left have a little echo-chamber problem of their own. Says Jay Cost:

The problem for the left is that they do not have a lot of interaction with conservatives, whose intellects are often disparaged, ideas are openly mocked, and intentions regularly questioned. Conservative ideas rarely make it onto the pages of most middle- and high-brow publications of news and opinion the left frequents. So, liberals regularly find themselves surprised when their ideas face pushback.

I think that is exactly what happened with Obamacare. The attitude of President Obama (a former con law lecturer at the University of Chicago, no less!), Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid was very much that they are doing big, important things to help the American people, why wouldn’t that be constitutional? No less an important Democratic leader as the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee cited the (nonexistent) “good and welfare clause” to justify the mandate.

Having no intellectual sympathy for the conservative criticism of this view, they rarely encountered it on the news programs they watch, the newspapers they read every day, or the journals they peruse over the weekends. Instead, they encountered a steady drumbeat of fellow liberals echoing Kagan’s attitude: it’s a boatload of money, what the heck is the problem?

Fair points all, but look: Even I was surprised at how hostile the conservatives on the Court seemed to be towards the mandate. That’s not because I’m reading back issues of The Nation, it’s because the painful fact remains that the Supremes almost always let Congress do any ol’ thing it wants when it comes to regulating commerce. Remember the terrible, terrible Raich case? That wasn’t the Warren Court and it wasn’t a 5-4 decision. It was 2005 and it went 6-3 thanks to — ta da — Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia. It came fully 10 years after the landmark Lopez case, which was supposed to herald some new golden age of limits on the Commerce Clause but hasn’t borne much fruit yet. Maybe ObamaCare is where it’ll pay off, or maybe Scalia’s point during oral arguments that “commerce” doesn’t include people who haven’t yet bought insurance will save the day. But it’s not pure leftist hallucination to think that 70 years of the Court letting Congress run wild with economic regulation might lead to them rubber-stamping the mandate too. Remember, even a conservative judicial eminence like Laurence Silberman upheld the mandate at the appellate level. I’m on record as of today in believing that the Supremes will, in fact, uphold it too on a 6-3 vote with Roberts writing a very narrow majority opinion. Can’t blame the left for being surprised that the Commerce Clause suddenly exists. Although you can, of course, blame them for dismissing conservative legal objections to the mandate simply because they’re conservative. That’ll never change — their sense of infallible intellectual superiority is too precious to them. But it’s fun to see it shaken.

I’m on record as of today in believing that the Supremes will, in fact, uphold it too on a 6-3 vote with Roberts writing a very narrow majority opinion.

So, they would rather continue the charade of bad precedents rather than move back toward the original intent of the clause. If so, we’re doomed. Even if Roberts writes it so it very narrowly interpets limits, it won’t be long before we’ll repeating the whole dog and pony show for some other “special issue”. It will neve stop.

I’m on record as of today in believing that the Supremes will, in fact, uphold it too on a 6-3 vote with Roberts writing a very narrow majority opinion.

Well, I hope you’re as wrong on that as you’re wrong on your disbelief in God. ObamaCare, after all, will decimate the natural rights we have, which came from God and not government, as our country’s Founders all knew.

I’ve worked in different areas over the years.
IMO the stupidest but sometimes entertaining people are in Real Estate.
Radio people are significantly quicker and smarter than their TV counterparts. However, TV people tend to speak to one another, (a lot, almost exclusively) reinforcing their opinions of the world.
No doubt Matthews gets complete reverberations of his personal opinions with those in his business confines. It is the rare anchor person who has (or demonstrates) any intellectual virtues at all.
The only persons I ever encountered in higher mathematics courses back in the day (e.g. Linear Algebra; DiffEQ’s; Adv Eng Math and such) besides the Math, Chem or Physics majors were the occassional Economics major.
Beyond freshman physics you never met a Journo or Lit major taking the science classes, ever.

The Raich case is distinguishable, I believe, because it dealt with production of a commodity. Not so with PPACA. (Now that Obama has embraced the term Obamacare, I reject the term and henceforth will call it by its rightful name, pronounced Peepacka.)

BTW, I’m the opposite of you AP… I think the mandate will struck down 6-3 and the liberal who goes over may get to pick how ObamaCare get’s picked apart.

ninjapirate on March 29, 2012 at 8:37 PM

My prediction, and I’m partly with you: The mandate gets struck down 6-3, and the entire bill is thrown out 5-4. Roberts is an originalist on the Constitution and a believer in limited, enumerated powers, despite what the libs might hope for otherwise.

And, Breyer will be in that 6 against the mandate but probably in the pro-severability 4.

Fair points all, but look: Even I was surprised at how hostile the conservatives on the Court seemed to be towards the mandate.

You have to remember that in many appellate courts where the legislation has been challenged, conservateive judges asked scathing questions yet ultimiately upheld Obamacare. I think I’ll wait to see their decision before jumping to conclusions.

I wonder if she or the wise Latina will leak the results of the vote to O to give him a heads up. Maybe we will be able to infer what’s coming down. If Barky ramps up the demogaguery of the SCOTUS, it means he lost. If he and his minions say they are confident their side will win, and they continue the implementation of Obamacare, we’re hosed.

I feel the same way as many on this forum. I want to see the decision first. Many times we wish for that grand-slam, in-your-face, total victory. Often times we end up with half a loaf. I fear a half a loaf will happen this time around and then Romney gets elected to continue our slide into the financial abyss.

Alas, that poll isn’t useful. It doesn’t ask about the possibility that the court will strike down the mandate but uphold some remaining portions of the law.

aunursa on March 29, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Or …

Alas, that poll isn’t useful. It doesn’t take into consideration that nearly everyone in the poll is an imbecile who couldn’t find the constitution if you shoved it up their ***, and besides — there are four Democrats on the SCOTUS who couldn’t give a rat’s *** what the constitution says.

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, upholding the rights of corporations to make political expenditures under the First Amendment, there have been several calls for a US Constitutional amendment to abolish Corporate Personhood.

So this was an expected ruling from the Robert’s court, and all SCOTUS rulings are predictable according to Allah…..than why did Obama chastise them at the State of the Union Address, if he knew how they were going to rule? I mean they just overturned a precedent that was over 100 years old…..

Remember Kelo vs. New London, CT? I guess I didn’t see that one coming. Still find it hard to believe that seizing someone’s private home and giving it to a private developer is proper application of eminent domain and constitutional.

I’m on record as of today in believing that the Supremes will, in fact, uphold it too on a 6-3 vote with Roberts writing a very narrow majority opinion.

Could you explain what you think will be the “limiting principle,” because as far as I could tell nobody in the courtroom for three days could articulate one.

The Supremes could say “We’ll approve this for health care because it’s a unique market, but don’t you ever, ever, ask us to approve it for anything else” and it would be vaporware. The camel’s nose is under the tent baby – and I think (hope?) they know it.

Allahpundit you ignorant eeyore slut. ‘anything congress wants re the commerce clause’ is NOT the same thing as the massively out of bounds ‘individual mandate’. That’s been the very crux of the whole damned mess since BEFORE IT WAS PASSED. Yet here YOU are right alongside these morons Toobin and Matthews, going ‘whuwhuwhaaat?’

SHAME on you all you supposed leaders at the forefront of what is hot and topical, for being so pitiully uninformed on the subjects you bandy about. Bunch of feckless gandy dancers, massively failing in your duty to inform, to yourselves BE informed, riding this Republic right into the ovens of the Tranzis.

“I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.” – Pauline Kael, film critic, The New Yorker, 1972, expressing surprise that Nixon was re-elected.

“I was totally surprised because of the way people talked…and his major achievement just ripped off the books.” – Chris Matthews, Cable talk show host, MSNBC, 2012, expressing surprise that Obamacare might be unconstitutional.

Allahpundits point here is a little one-sided. Sure raging liberals think right wing legal arguments have no merit. But you can say the same about people here that think the court could only find the mandate to be unconstitutional. The reality is that it could go either way and there are legitimate legal arguments by both sides as to why the mandate should or should not survive constitutional scrutiny.

Right and Left Wingers both refuse to merit in each others points of view.

My condition is not such that it was a pressing issue. I always thought I’d bide my time, and if it got worse then I would go ahead. Not now. I’m taking no chances. If this thing gets approved in June, I’ll have my work done before year’s end.

There’s nothing ‘intrinsic’ about it, that’s BS. The difference is the arrogance that fosters the ignorance. Conservatives generally take the time to learn both sides of an issue, to better argue the key elements or facts. The LLLibs ‘feel’ and ‘know’ and as such never even bother to examine their premises. We literally just passed the 2yr mark of this abomination, with months of shenanigans before it passed, yet liberal pundit after liberal pundit now expresses their deep ignorance of the core facts of the matter. It’s obscene. It’s their damned JOB to know the issues inside and out, and now we once again have fresh proofs that their understanding is next to nil. Their understanding described and circumscribed by little more than some promulgated ‘talking points’ vomit fed them by their preferred sources.

I work with HR directors at businesses and I am a Ins Rep. for medical (sorry have to be vague here).

Your sister is right. None of us have a flipping clue.
Although, employers now have to submit group insurance info for all employees at tax time. That will show on the W2’s. That was on the Obamacare timeline for 2012. Among a few other things we have to do now. The timeline we received through a law firm.
My dad was invited to a large meeting on it last week. I haven’t had a chance to speak with him though.

Which is why Scalia won’t put his law clerks through the torture of trying to read it, and make sense of it.

It’s bad enough that the democrats in congress didn’t read the bill before they passed it – it would be worse for SCOTUS to uphold it without reading it.

I took it as a sign from Scalia, no way am I doing Congress’s DUTY for them, and figure out what’s in their bill, and if any of it is worth salvaging. That should be a unanimous decision by all of the judges. Kick it to the curb.

Allahpundits point here is a little one-sided. Sure raging liberals think right wing legal arguments have no merit. But you can say the same about people here that think the court could only find the mandate to be unconstitutional. The reality is that it could go either way and there are legitimate legal arguments by both sides as to why the mandate should or should not survive constitutional scrutiny.

Right and Left Wingers both refuse to merit in each others points of view.

cd98 on March 29, 2012 at 9:21 PM

That’s a steaming pile of equivocating horse pucky. There AREN’T any legitimate legal arguments re constitutionality of an individual mandate. Just gross distortions and outright lies.

I’m on record as of today in believing that the Supremes will, in fact, uphold it too on a 6-3 vote with Roberts writing a very narrow majority opinion.

Soooo, AP doubles down on the salt in the wound.
1. He has stock holdings in Big Pharma (anti depressants)
2. ? Could I at least ad some lavender oil to the salt in order to make a nice relaxing salt scrub.

I agree with your opinion about Breyer, professionally and personally he is scum. And he cares little of the Constitution normally, but his ego here will overcome his ideology. He will see his vote against the mandate and his separate vote for keeping the rest of the bill in tact as making him the new “centrist” on the Court, replacing Kennedy, in his mind anyway. Mark my words, he will do this.

My condition is not such that it was a pressing issue. I always thought I’d bide my time, and if it got worse then I would go ahead. Not now. I’m taking no chances. If this thing gets approved in June, I’ll have my work done before year’s end.

predator on March 29, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Same here, nothing serious but the government would surely consider it elective, it’s borderline already. So I’m goin for it.
Deposit already made.

I took it as a sign from Scalia, no way am I doing Congress’s DUTY for them, and figure out what’s in their bill, and if any of it is worth salvaging. That should be a unanimous decision by all of the judges. Kick it to the curb.

Dr Evil on March 29, 2012 at 9:28 PM

You forget that Kagan was deputy / solicitor and helped fabricate the fabricated defense of this putrid legislation, and got appointed as reward and Chicago-style insurance of its ‘interpretation’ in the SCOTUS. Appointed by a Machine who themselves has no understanding of how stuff works at this level. No grasp that if ‘Chicago Way’ holds sway in this then there WILL be armed revolt.
She OUGHT to have recused herself, if she had any personal ethical integrity. And if she had any she wouldn’t have got the jobs in the Obamunist machine in the first place.

The Justices are going to meet and vote and assign majority and dissent writing chores very soon. Then they are supposed to hold close the decision until it is released near the end of the session in late June. 3mos from now. No way in hell will Kagan – or Sotomayor, for that matter – keep her yap shut about it. They’ll tell their liberal masters the vote the day it is cast.